Search form

Featured Topics

To promote stable, constructive labor-management relations through the resolution and prevention of labor disputes in a manner that gives full effect to the collective-bargaining rights of employees, unions, and agencies.

This matter is before the Authority on an exception to an award of
Arbitrator John A. Bailey filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of the
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and part 2425
of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. The Agency filed an opposition to the
Union's exception.

The Arbitrator denied a grievance contesting an employee's performance
rating on the ground that the grievance was untimely filed. For the following
reasons, we conclude that the Union fails to establish that the award is
deficient. Accordingly, we will deny the Union's exception.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

A grievance contesting the grievant's performance rating was submitted
to arbitration. The Arbitrator concluded that, as the grievance was not filed
until 35 days after the grievant received the disputed rating, the grievance
was untimely filed. The Arbitrator found that, under the parties' collective
bargaining agreement, a grievance must be filed "'in writing within
30 calendar days of the date that the employee . . . became aware . . .
of the act [complained of][.]'" Award at 2 (Article 13, section 7 of the
parties' agreement) (emphasis in original). The Arbitrator rejected the Union's
argument that the grievant's refusal to sign her performance rating constituted
the filing of a grievance. Consequently, the Arbitrator denied the
grievance.

III. The Union's Exception

The Union contends that the Arbitrator's award is based on a nonfact.
The Union argues that because the grievant attempted to resolve her performance
appraisal dispute with her supervisor informally, the time limit for filing her
grievance did not begin until the informal attempt failed.

IV. The Agency's Opposition

The Agency argues that the Union's exception does not demonstrate that
the award is deficient.

V. Analysis and Conclusions

To establish that an award is based on a nonfact, the party making the
allegation must demonstrate that the central fact underlying the award is
clearly erroneous but for which a different result would have been reached by
the arbitrator. For example, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Customs
Service, South Central Region, New Orleans, Louisiana and National Treasury
Employees Union, Chapter 168, 43 FLRA 337, 342 (1991).

The Union has not demonstrated that the Arbitrator's award is based on
a nonfact. Rather, the Union's argument constitutes mere disagreement with the
Arbitrator's evaluation of the evidence and interpretation of the parties'
collective bargaining agreement in resolving a question of procedural
arbitrability. As such, it provides no basis on which to find the award
deficient. See, for example, id. at 343. Accordingly, we
will deny the Union's exception.